Ethics Commission

THE QUESTIONS

1.       Did Interim Sheriff Carmine Marceno reopen a closed criminal complaint that had been determined to be “civil” to facilitate an introduction to Deanna Williams?

2.       Did Marceno use his position to facilitate a personal relationship with Deanna Williams?

3.       Did Marceno have a physical relationship with Williams in his official capacity and within a vehicle owned by the Lee County Sheriff Office?

4.       Did the physical relationship between Williams and Marceno result in a pregnancy?

5.       Did Marceno demand that Williams get an abortion?

6.       Did Marceno violate the rules and regulations of the Lee County Sheriff Office as it relates to Conduct Unbecoming?

There are many questions that can be asked as it relates to this event. We will present the facts from a physical evidentiary position and let you decide the questions.

FIRST CONTACT

Williams states that she had received a FaceBook message from Marceno asking for her to approve a “Friend Request” and that this was the first contact with him and that this took place on August 29th, 2017. Williams provided a copy of the request to prove that Marceno made the initial contact with her. She further stated that from August 2017 through July 2018 that Marceno made a number of comments and likes on pictures and entries that she had made on Facebook. She further stated that there were a number of followers on her Facebook page that she did not know and that it included Marceno. The copies of the Facebook "private message" sent by Marceno to Williams with use of his issued Lee County Sheriff Office phone contained the following messages:  

On July 15th, 2018, at 10:44 p.m., Marceno “private message” Williams and asked, “If I may ask, what type of work do you do?”  

On July 18th, 2018, at 7:43 p.m., Williams replied to the message, “Hi there. I worked in sales for many years, currently off pursuing another project. How about you? What type of work do you do?”

On July 18th, 2018 at 10:27 p.m., Marceno replies “Hi Deanna, Sounds nice! What type of project? I am a part time realtor and have a team I work with. My full time career is law enforcement. The Lee County Sheriffs Office.”

On July 19th, 2018 at 12:30 a.m., Williams replies, “I was a Realtor in the Midwest before I moved to SWFL. I started selling real estate very young. I had the privilege of assisting some genuinely great people. I miss my associates and clients. Interesting that you work for LCSO. I have to follow up with Economics Crimes regarding a six figure theft. It definitely seems like an exercise in futility. So what department do you work for? (Hopefully not Economics Crimes!) You must keep busy with two jobs. Which do you enjoy most?

On July 19, 2018 at 3:35 a.m., Marceno sends a link to an article about his new position at LCSO and further states, “Please let me know if I can help with ECU issue. I’m sorry to hear you had an issue. It’s everyday unfortunately with these types of issues.”

Marceno claims in his statement to the Ethic Commission that he had been to an event and that Williams was in attendance prior to the Facebook communications but could not recall the event.  

 A summary of the statement of Marceno provided to the Ethics Commission Investigator (Document 2, p 2-3) provides an investigative look into his conduct as related to the Deanna Williams complaint. Marceno claims to have met Williams at some kind of function he had attended but can not remember the event except that it was six months ago. He claims that he may have listed her name in his address system on his phone and that this triggered the automated request for friends. Marceno further states within this part of the statement that Williams knew from "day one" that he was a deputy although that conflicts with the text messages that took place in July 2018 as it relates to the initial contact (Document 3). 

Williams statement to the Ethics Commission Investigator (Document 1, p 1-3) shows that the Economical Crime Unit had an active investigation based on a complaint filed by her. The complaint was adjudicated as being a civil issue in May 2018 at the direction and in agreement of the State Attorney's Office (SAO). Marceno interjected himself in the issue by arranging a meeting with Williams. Williams agreed to meet with him (Marceno) in hopes of recovering funds from a previous court judgement. Marceno had three choices on the initial contact with Williams. These choices included:

• Accept the case as being adjudicated as a civil issue with no further intervention. 

• Speak directly with the investigators involved in the case and to the conclusion of the case. 

• Reopen the investigation to seek further actions. 

Marceno elected to meet with Williams without knowing the status of the case nor the nature of the case. 

Williams states that after meeting with Marceno at the Sheriff Office that she was assured that the issue would be reviewed. Williams goes on to say within the content of her statement that Marceno assured her that the case would be resolved. 

The Physical Relationship

Williams further describes the physical relationships that had taken place in the police vehicle and felt that she needed to continue the relationship to get a positive law enforcement action as it related to her reported theft. Marceno denies that any physical relationship took place in his issued police car. According to Williams, he told her that she can never disclose how the relationship began as it would result in his lost of job. Marceno stated within his statement that no physical relationship took place in the county issued vehicle. 

 The Pregnancy And The Demand For Abortion

The initial contact between Marceno and Williams started in July 2018. In September 2018 Williams discovers that she is with child and provides that information to Marceno. Marceno through various texts demands that the pregnancy be ended. (Document 4) 

The Responds To Complaint By Marceno's Attorney

The Attorney (R.W. Evans) representing Marceno outlined their defense in a letter submitted to the Ethics Commission. Attorney summarizes that the criminal case had been closed therefore the event did not take place until the conclusion of the case and "refute the Complainant's contention that Marceno interfered with the investigation or used the investigation to coerce a relationship from Williams". The issue of reopening the case and contacting the SAO a second time for reconsideration was not addressed. (Document 6)

The Ethics Commission Report

The Ethics Commission conducted an investigation and reached a conclusion of "No Corrupt Intent" as it relates to this issue. The Ethics Commission depends on the opinion of the Advocate's conclusion. The full report can be found in (Document 5) with the Advocate's conclusions (Document 7). The Advocate relies on the criminal complaint of July 2018 filled by Williams but does not make reference to the same case that had been adjudicated in May 2018.The Advocate claims that due to the fact that the criminal case had been closed that there could not have been a "Corrupt Intent" to achieve an advantage of an exchange of relations between the two parties for a better outcome of the filed criminal complaint. What the Advocate failed to consider was that Marceno reopened a closed criminal case by his actions of July 2018 and for what purpose? Why?

Conduct Unbecoming

According to Director Stacy Lehmann of the Criminal Justice and Standards and Training Council (CJSTC), the agency relies on reports from other investigative units such as the Lee County Sheriff Office Internal Affairs Unit. These reports are usually referred as Administrative Investigations that have no Criminal Intent but violates the FDLE Administrative Conduct of Officers and/or the rules of the agency that support such Official Conduct. CJSTC has no investigators. Although there are rules relating to official misconduct of a police officer in the State of Florida and codified in Florida State Statue, the information must be received from an outside agency. There is limited reference to this issue contained within the Advocate's conclusion. 

Conclusions

The reader will have to review the factual evidences and statements associated with this event and determine for themselves if the actions of Marceno reached the level of police misconduct. There seems to be no desire to conduct an Administrative Investigation into the reported issue as most are of the opinion that type of investigation is the responsibility of the agency itself. 

 "We Present The Facts - You Decide The Truth"